2. The case cited a claim for the paint against damage to a building; and

2. If a victim and his/her family have resided for not less than 20 years and a house and a store that operated a bank for the purpose of maintaining their livelihood have been destroyed to the extent that it is impossible to reconstruct or repair due to a traffic accident, it is obvious in light of the empirical rule that the victim would have suffered a large number of mental suffering, and therefore, the perpetrator has a duty to avoid it.

A. The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff the amount of 7,561,350 won with 5,561,350 won per annum from April 13, 1986 to February 9, 198, the amount of 25 percent per annum from the next day to the date of full payment, the amount of 2,00,000 won per annum from April 13, 1986 to March 31, 1989, and the amount of 5 percent per annum from the next day to the date of full payment.

B. The plaintiff's remaining claims are dismissed.

2. All the costs of lawsuit shall be ten minutes per the first and second instances, and seven minutes shall be borne by the defendant, and the remainder by the plaintiff.

3. The above paragraph 1(a) may be provisionally executed.

The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the defendant and a declaration of provisional execution.

(1) The plaintiff filed a claim for consolation money and its delay damages with the rate of 25 percent per annum from April 13, 1986 to the date of full payment (the day following the delivery of the copy of the complaint in this case). The plaintiff filed a claim for consolation money and its delay damages with the rate of 3,00,000 won per annum from April 13, 1986 to the date of full payment).

The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff 4,838,00 won with the annual interest rate of 5 percent from April 13, 1986 to February 9, 1988 and the annual interest rate of 25 percent from the next day to the date of full payment.

The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the defendant in both the first and second instances, and provisional execution shall be declared.

If Gap evidence Nos. 1 (a copy of the Automobile Register), Gap evidence Nos. 4-6 (each statement of statement No. 4, Eul evidence No. 4-4 shall be the same as Eul evidence No. 4-3), and Eul evidence No. 4-4) without dispute over its establishment (Provided, That the above evidence No. 4-3 shall be excluded from the part which is trusted behind the statement No. 4-3) and the witness of the party examination are collected the purport of the oral argument before the oral argument, it is impossible for the plaintiff to safely use the above truck on Dec. 16, 1985 and the deceased non-party No. 1, who is the driver of the vehicle, to use the above truck around 08:0, and to use the above truck at a speed of 70 kilometers per hour from the south west-si, and the plaintiff's duty of care at a speed of 90 km away from the above point of view and damaged the above drug at a speed of no more than 10 km per hour.

2. Scope of liability for damages

(a) Property damage;

(1) Damage caused by destruction of the instant building

The facts that the building of this case was destroyed or damaged to the extent that it would be impossible to repair it as above. As such, the plaintiff suffered losses equivalent to the exchange price of the building of this case, Gap evidence 9 (which is the ground for calculating the building Table), Eul evidence 10-2 (which is the same as Gap evidence 11-3), Eul evidence 11-2 (Notice of Estimated Price), Eul evidence 14-1, 12-12-1, 12-12-9 (No. 6-2) at the time of the above construction of the building of this case, Eul evidence 20-5 (which is the ground for calculating the exchange price of the building of this case), Eul evidence 20-5 (which is the ground for calculating the market price of the building of this case) at least 9-1 (No. 9, No. 11-2) at the time of the above construction of the building of this case, and the value of the building of this case at least 9-16-2) at the time of the above construction of the 10-6-1, defendant 9.

(b)Damage due to the destruction of equipment and drugs;

As a result of the instant accident, there is no dispute between the parties as to the facts that equivalent to the sum total of KRW 595,000 and the aggregate amount of KRW 600,000 for medicines displayed in the instant building, which were kept in the instant building due to the instant accident, and the amount equivalent to KRW 1,195,000 (gold KRW 595,000 + KRW 60,000). Therefore, the Plaintiff suffered damages equivalent to the sum amount of KRW 1,195,00.

(C) Determination on the Plaintiff’s claim for damages equivalent to lost profit

The plaintiff alleged that the part of the building of this case among the buildings of this case was destroyed due to the accident of this case and at least 2 months from the date of the accident of this case, the plaintiff did not obtain a profit equivalent to 1,400,000 won since it was alleged that the plaintiff did not use the above store for the purpose of 2 months from the date of the accident of this case. Thus, the ordinary damages in the case where the article was destroyed due to tort are equivalent to the exchange price of the article at the time of the loss and the damages for delay thereafter, and the profits which could have been gained by using the article in the future are included in the exchange price. In this case, as seen above, as the amount of damages caused by the destruction of the building of this case is recognized as equivalent to the exchange price of the building at the time of the accident of this case, the plaintiff cannot separately claim damages for the lost profit per the plaintiff's assertion that

(b) consolation money;

Since the accident of this case shows that the plaintiff and his family had resided for 20 years and operated a bank for the purpose of maintaining their livelihood as above, and that the plaintiff's wife was damaged as above and suffered mental suffering that is not many of the plaintiff as the plaintiff's wife suffered from the above injury, the defendant is obligated to stand against it. Thus, considering various circumstances such as the plaintiff's age, residence and business period as shown in the argument of this case, the circumstance and the result of the accident of this case, it is reasonable to pay 2,000,000 won as consolation money to the plaintiff.

3. If so, the defendant is liable to the plaintiff for damages of 5,561,350 won for the above recognition's property damages of 4,366,350 won + 1,195,00 won plus 7,561,350 won for consolation money and 2,000 won for consolation money, and 5,561,350 won for the above property damages claimed by the plaintiff from the original court after the accident of this case, it is obvious that the delivery day of the complaint of this case is the next day of the delivery day of the copy of the complaint of this case from April 13, 1986 to February 9, 198. Thus, it is reasonable to claim for damages of 25% per annum from the next day of the judgment below to the above 90% per annum for damages of 9,000 won per annum for the above damages of 9,000 won per annum from the next day of the judgment below to the 9.3% per annum for the above damages of 9.

Judges Gangnam-gu (Presiding Judge)